Passenger Trains > Amtrak -CN mediation update (from yesterday)

CN gonna be asking for more money!

365(20) is stopped at BTL in the CN Southbend Corridor unable to move more than 20 some feet at a time. The reason? Another ITCS/PTC meltdown on the engine!

Got a CN freight train stopped, account the track blockage. This is the type of delay that CN states in arbitration they expect to be paid for.. I see their point, and don't blame them for it... It's their railroad.

Previous Thread: https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4851401

When the Guilford pulled this nonsense on Amtrak years ago, Amtrak went to court and seized theConnecticut River  line from them. 

I'm sure CN wouldn't like Amtrak taking the line through South Bend or Carbondale IL from them...

B&M let their track go down to 10MPH in places. After the 25 year contract period was up in 1996, I somehow doubt they have condemnation powers any longer. The only other parallel I see is Amtrak suing Espee in the 1970's or early 80's for $12 million and won. 

 

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the Guilford pulled this nonsense on Amtrak
> years ago, Amtrak went to court and seized
> theConnecticut River  line from them. 
>
> I'm sure CN wouldn't like Amtrak taking the line
> through South Bend or Carbondale IL from them...

That was more than thirty years ago when Amtrak’s legal relationship to the host railroads was still governed under the original enabling legislation, which expired in 1996.  The current legislation is weaker, so I’m not sure that action is still possible.  

Ironically, the final step of the River Line condemnation and seizure was Amtrak selling the line to Canadian National’s subsidiary Central Vermont.

Dave

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the Guilford pulled this nonsense on Amtrak
> years ago, Amtrak went to court and seized
> theConnecticut River  line from them. 
>
> I'm sure CN wouldn't like Amtrak taking the line
> through South Bend or Carbondale IL from them...

Also keep in mind CN is more financially solvent and Guilford and has money for a decent legal team.

DevalDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When the Guilford pulled this nonsense on
> Amtrak
> > years ago, Amtrak went to court and seized
> > theConnecticut River  line from them. 
> >
> > I'm sure CN wouldn't like Amtrak taking the
> line
> > through South Bend or Carbondale IL from
> them...
>
> Also keep in mind CN is more financially solvent
> and Guilford and has money for a decent legal
> team.

Agreed. Had GTI made even perfunctory improvements, the case would have gone nowhere at all..

Another irony.  When the present Battle Creek depot was placed in service circa 1990, there was a depot track that Amtrak used.  Due to a dispute between local Amtrak and CN officers over the maintenance of this track, CN ripped it up.  Now Amtrak works the station from Main TK 1.  If the station track were still in service, CN could hold Amtrak out of the way of a conflicting freight until the I-ETMS and ITCS is working.  Now, if there is a following CN freight it has to sit and wait.

Andy

PC1974 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CN gonna be asking for more money!
>
> 365(20) is stopped at BTL in the CN Southbend
> Corridor unable to move more than 20 some feet at
> a time. The reason? Another ITCS/PTC meltdown on
> the engine!
>
> Got a CN freight train stopped, account the track
> blockage. This is the type of delay that CN
> states in arbitration they expect to be paid for..
> I see their point, and don't blame them for it...
> It's their railroad.
>
> Previous Thread:
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,
> 4851401

The equipment turn, 364(20) is out of the gate late.. And joining in the late departures is 352.. Already about 90 minutes late at NBU....